Symthic Forum was shut down on January 11th, 2019. You're viewing an archive of this page from 2019-01-09 at 01:42. Thank you all for your support! Please get in touch via the Curse help desk if you need any support using this archive.

This was with the bare ass attachments, aside from the green laser I got in a battlepack. Then I got an RDS and ergo in the match, so I used those.

I always thought high ROF guns were impossible to be as effective as slower ROF guns at medium-longish range. Boy, was I wrong.

the AEK is massively buffed in BF4. it now has 0.55 total horizontal recoil and 0.2 base spread, compared to 0.8 total horizontal recoil and 0.3 base spread in BF3. its stats absolutely begs for the heavy barrel for total omnipotence, but the heavy barrel also makes it really hard to use.

What I don't understand is, I feel it is far easier to control than the M416. I also feel more accurate with it, because of this. However, upon just looking at the stats, the M416 has less recoil in every aspect AND less spread increase per shot. Then there's the ROF, which obviously plays quite a large role in recoil.

I think I'm insane.

EDIT: Perhaps I simply overcompensate with certain weapons? Maybe the 750 RPM is just awkward for my playstyle? I really don't know.

Now, admittedly, I don't understand how those lines could possibly result in a "x-amount of shots will land in the inner y-% of the actual spread"-statement, as I lack the required computer-science to understand that. But, for as far as I am aware, we don't have the actual direct information in the game engine to confirm that. It is all done by testing, which so far has proven (ever so slightly) unreliable.

This equation is the original one also used in Plotic, Symplot, and then Hitrater. It is the simplest method for achieving 'spread'-like noise.

J0hn's test could be redone with the single-shots-for-min-spread-estimation technique I tried. I think J0hn's data are valid also because he was essentially operating at max spread all the time.

The x-amount of shots in y% of area is a trivial consequence, almost a tautology, of the equation. That equation says that you pick a uniformly random distance from origo in the range of [0, Spread] and a uniformly random angle. Split the distance to two equal parts [0,.5 Spread] and [.5 Spread, Spread]: you will have an equal amount of shots in each bin, won't you (because uniform distribution). Hence 50% of shots will be in an area of which the radius is 50% of Spread. Now solve the area (pi * r^2) and you find that the inner area is .5^2 * 100% of the total area. There's nothing more to that.

Also, I have never personally seen any tweet from demize about this, but I highly doubt he would directly confirm an algorithm.

See this post. Also confirmed by Sym. One problem is that much of the knowledge in Symthic is scattered into single posts in randomly named threads, which might or might not remain in memories of some and are never discovered by newcomers.

^multiple formula's are mentioned in that thread, with this one chosen for...some reason(?)

Multiple options (albeit very very close to each other) are present for horizontal recoil. See this thread and, e.g., this post. The Hitrater approximation of H recoil patterns gives patterns that are very close to the observed ones. In the end, we don't even need to care much if our simulation mechanism is 100% identical to that used by DICE. If our mechanism produces identical statistics in all conditions, it is more than sufficient for the purposes that the weapon analyses serve (!). These two H recoil algorithms are much better (closer to the truth) than the 'common wisdom' of H recoil just being random between LeftRecoil and RightRecoil, which wouldagainst all in-game observations, lead to random walks.

you have to understand that I don't mean to disrespect you, and a highly appreciate your work. However, me being the skeptical/scientific/asshole'ish person I am I lack the proper evidence from the game engine/confirmation from the developers that these are the exact mechanics of this. While I can understand how you can be surprised about me making that statement, I personally refuse to take anything as a scientific fact until proven with no doubt left.

With all due respect, In my eyes a lot of this is random/semi-random with the formula's being best-guesses. If I'm wrong on this (and might have missed info), and there -is- solid proof to support these exact formula's, then please prove me wrong. As that would end our hunt for the perfect statistically-superior firearms writeup.

My argument here is that the massive work done by symthicians over the past years has given very good empirical constraints on what the shooting mechanics can or cannot be. Hence the links above: I am not trying to prove you wrong but trying to show that with the knowlegde we have already, very few and rather minor doubts remain.

There may be guesses or inferences involved, but they are very educated guesses. In science IRL, one also must make assumptions, guesses, inferences, and hypotheses to progress lest we forever dwell in dark ages. In numbers, I argue that we can perhaps now model the guns with 95% accuracy, or 98%, or ... The models can and should still be improved, but they are already now adequately accurate to be useful within the limits any theoretical analysis can be. And in any case these model are much more accurate and informative about the whole than mental or visual stat comparisons.

"Less is more? How can that be? How could less be more, that's impossible. More is more." Yngwie Malmsten
"Many bullets help." WoopsyYaya
"most rhetorically legitimate ad hominem 2015" ToTheSun!

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "3VerstsNorth" (Nov 20th 2013, 12:31am)

I will. Because you claimed we, here at symthic, should take players into account to determine weapon's effectiveness. That is completely the opposite of what we do here at symthic, in the technical section

Nope, never said anything like that.

Just pointed out that aside from the stats and numbers, people still have to try out different weapons to see which one really works for them. This was also only aimed at the endusers, not at this site or anything. There's really no reason to be so hostile about it.

Oh and I don't think the SSG552 is inferior to the ACW-R. The lower spread increase alone easily makes up for the (only very slightly) higher RoF of the ACW-R. Especially since both guns need several bullets to kill. I'd only consider the ACW-R superior at very close range.

I love how you've messed up the SG553's name twice. A spread increase difference of .006 is hardly worth noting, because the effect it has on the weapon will be negligible. "Endusers" (End users, I presume) includes us, unless you think the Symthic community just finds everything out about a game and then doesn't play it. It doesn't work like that. There's no "weapon that works" for a specific person, there's just cold hard facts. Sure, the person's skill and way of playing have to be taken into account, but only after the best statistical weapon is decided from facts. FInally, Sheepnub isn't being hostile, he's being Sheepnub .

@Sym
@Myffili

Apparently, the M1911's stats have not yet been changed for the update. This caused Sheepy to mistakenly say the C45 was better than the M1911, which it is most decidedly not.

I can totally see people complaining about the ACE 52 CQB as time goes on, and they are going to butcher it just like they did the UMP-45, G3, and SCAR-H in BF3.

I personally have no problem with it, but people see "Z0MG 3 hit kill durrrrrhhhH!!!!" and totally freak out, completely disregarding low RoF, high recoil, and small mag. And DICE has a vendetta against those types of weapons.

I also see people complaining about the ACW-R too, which again I think is fine the way it is.

They seem quite balanced with each other, although the CZ-3A1's TTK is very impressive and it doesn't sacrifice hipfire to get it so my bets are that it is better than most PDWs.

I can confirm this, this weapon is insane. I have also gotten several kills with it at medium range. The bullets are leaving the gun at 1100 RPM and it just fires so many at once that my opponents never stand a chance, ESPECIALLY if I get the drop on them. In CQ it is amazing, hip-fire is very very good.

I can totally see people complaining about the ACE 52 CQB as time goes on, and they are going to butcher it just like they did the UMP-45, G3, and SCAR-H in BF3.

I personally have no problem with it, but people see "Z0MG 3 hit kill durrrrrhhhH!!!!" and totally freak out, completely disregarding low RoF, high recoil, and small mag. And DICE has a vendetta against those types of weapons.

I also see people complaining about the ACW-R too, which again I think is fine the way it is.

no because 99% of players play with defensive perks , so its a 4 hit kill